Civilization's Future

Where do plants go when they die. You think that they normally fall to the ground and get recycled by microbes into plant food. However the conditions are sometimes not right. Possibly the nutrients and the contained energy remain intact. If this continually occurs over enough time then it accumulates into peat. Given enough time and a few other conditions, the peat becomes coal but that’s another story.

“There are about 4 trillion m³ of peat in the world covering a total of around 2% of global land area (about 3 million km²), containing about 8 billion terajoules of energy“. There is so much energy in this material that electrical power production plants use it as a primary energy source. Global consumption is around 17 million tonnes per annum which is about 4250 terajoules or 0.000843% of primary energy consumption.

Peat is recognized as renewable energy source. So theoretically we will always have access to it as an energy source. However, if we use the peat then no more coal will ever be created. Not a big issue if you expect our civilization to have a temporary existence.

But what if we want more for our civilization. How much peat is being created annually? Is this decreaseing due to our consumption and loss of land due to increasing agricultural demands? Do other life forms need peat? Can peat be used as a source for rocket fuel? While peat has a lot of energy, I don’t think it’s the sole solution for our civilization.

Imagine an intricate system of billions of linked parts. Humans with their highly analytical minds could identify each part and then group the parts. Grouping could be purely observational; those that are round, those that are blue, those that are wet, those that are more important. Further, imagine that each part is interconnected. In a bizarrely complex way, each part relies upon other parts to keep itself functioning. This is one amazing system.

What happens when a part disappears? A new part is made. What happens if a group of parts disappears. Resolving this may be more problematic. No new parts of that group could be made. Thus whatever function was performed must be taken up by other groups. Seems complicated but possible, all one has to do is determine the functions of the group in the system so as to replace them. If the system were a space shuttle then groups of failed parts, say O rings, would already have their function defined and thus be easily replaced. Now consider life on Earth as a system. If groups disappear, such as the die-off of dinosaurs, how does the system react? If we send groups to their demise, like the dodo, do we know and can we survive the consequences?

Sadly, conservationists must consider the effect of die-off. Humans have co-opted so much land area on Earth that other species can no longer get enough food (nutritional energy). Rather than trying to save all species, experts consider triage as an option; they play god and pick and choose which survives. Is this a travesty or is it the disintegration of the system that keeps humans alive? Do we have the wisdom to select which species die and which survive?

7 billion people, each requires food that supplies 10.5e6 Joules of energy per day
That is a global total of 2.68e19 Joules per annum if all adult
Assume a 10 to 1 efficiency for vegetarians which makes 2.68e20 Joules per annum
Assume an equal amount of energy to transport and process the food

Wheat contains 16e6 Joules per kilogram
At harvest it typically produces 3060kilograms per hectare

Overall then people require 5.369e20Joules
If all energy is from wheat of 16e6J/kg, this amounts to 3.35e12 kilograms
Now 3.35e12kg / 3060 kg per hectare = 1.09e9 hectares total annual global need

Our Earth has 13e9ha of land of which 4.967e9 hectares is agricultural area.

Why is there hunger?

Successful businesses draw revenue from mature products to invest in the future. Too much draw down for research puts the company on unsafe footing as resources are always limited. In a competitive environment, any waste lets other companies surge ahead. But, in a monopoly, waste causes no short pain, only a long lingering slide into irrelevance.

Civilizations have evolved the way businesses have. A civilization that allocates appropriate amounts of its resources will do well. They need to be sure that existing conditions are maintained but at the same time they must work toward a better future so as not to be overcome. Some consider the present global marketplace to have established a monopolistic civilization. But, as with businesses, without competition then there is no drive to advance. Will civilizations also fall into irrelevance?

The United Kingdom represents a typical, if not better, country. While it’s difficult to separate maintenance from investment, consider the proportion of their budget assigned to maintenance, ie health, welfare, social protection, pensions and interest. Since 1985 this has increased from 49% to 59% of total spending. Much of the remainder likely also serves to maintain than to advance. If this trend in our allocation of resources continues, will we slide into irrelevance?

At one time, the United States had a strategic reserve for Helium. This inert gas kept the dirigibles afloat and later served to aid in fuelling the space shuttle. However, as neither dirigibles nor space shuttles fly anymore, the need for Helium and the value of the reserve has fallen. Hence, the Helium strategic reserve is being depleted.

Many nations also have strategic reserves of petroleum, signifying the importance of this resource. While the rationale probably varies from country to country, the root basis is the same; our civilization depends upon ready transportation. Given most countries’ lack of indigenous supply, they realize that a temporary shortfall of petroleum would slow if not halt economic activity and even threaten their existence. Hence, by amassing a buffer they can breeze through shortfalls and their populaces continues undisturbed in their frenetic lifestyles.

If the energy provisioning of fossil fuels could be replaced then the associated strategic reserves would be depleted as is happening with Helium. However, energy, like Helium, is a finite resource that has only a few sources. We can’t replace energy nor can we invent new sources. Where we rescinded our usage of Helium and thus the need for its strategic reserve, we still rely upon fossil fuels. So its strategic reserve may postpone the eventually permanent shortfall of this non-renewable resource. But, until we give up our dependency, our civilization remains as robust as a dirigible floating around the skies.

Note: the Hindenburg used Hydrogen not Helium.